The Bombay High Court has rejected a petition filed by a diamond broker challenging a family court order directing him to vacate the flat where he had resided with his wife for 23 years. The court upheld the reasoning by the family court that the man had subjected his wife to domestic violence, warranting protection under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act).
Justice Madhav Jamdar dismissed the husband’s petition challenging an October 24, 2024 order by the Principal Judge of the Family Court, Mumbai, which restrained the husband and his family members from committing any act amounting to domestic violence against the wife and their minor daughter. The court also directed the husband to move into alternate accommodation until the disposal of the main case.
The husband’s lawyer, Sana Raees Khan, argued that the couple had been married since January 25, 2003, and had been living in the disputed flat since its purchase on April 29, 2003. She contended that there was no domestic violence and instead, the husband was being abused by his wife. She also claimed to have evidence, including videos and transcripts, to support this.
Khan further argued that since the flat was a shared household, as defined under the provisions of the DV Act, the husband could not be forced to vacate it.
Opposing the plea, the wife’s lawyer, Pooja Jalan, emphasised that the DV Act protects only women as “aggrieved persons” under Section 2(a). She maintained that since the husband could not be considered an “aggrieved person,” he could not claim the right to a shared household under the Act.
Jalan also pointed out that the flat was jointly purchased by the wife and her mother, and the husband had no legal claim over it.
After reviewing the records, the High Court noted that the family court had found prima facie evidence of physical and verbal abuse by the husband. The court reiterated that the DV Act is meant to protect women from domestic violence, and the husband could not claim rights under its provisions.
The court also dismissed the husband’s claim of financial hardship, citing his affidavit of assets and liabilities submitted before the trial court, where he declared himself a diamond broker earning approximately Rs7 lakh per month. However, his lawyer argued that the amount was his annual income, not monthly.
Justice Jamdar, on March 25, refused to stay the order observing: “The subject flat is of the ownership of the Respondent-Wife and as the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Mumbai has recorded a finding that the Respondent-Wife has been subjected to domestic violence, no case is made out for granting any stay. Therefore, the said request is rejected.”
